The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR against six individuals accused of assault, observing that the existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal proceedings if the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava held that the High Court should not thwart investigations at the threshold when the gravamen of the accusations indicates the commission of a crime.
The petitioners were represented by counsels Kirti Veer Singh, Abhishek Singh, and Ravi Shanker Singh. The respondents were represented by the Government Advocate (G.A.), alongside counsels Aman Thakur and Vineet Tripathi.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Devendra Kumar Singh and five others, approached the High Court praying for the quashing of FIR No. 0042, dated March 24, 2026. The FIR was registered at Police Station Karaundikalan, District Sultanpur, under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 352, 351(3), and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The allegations involved an incident on March 22, 2026, where the petitioners allegedly assaulted the complainant’s elder brother, Vidya Sagar, and others, resulting in injuries.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the injuries sustained by the victim were “simple in nature” and did not justify the invocation of Section 109 of the BNS 2023. They further contended that a civil dispute was pending between the parties and that the FIR was lodged merely to give a “criminal colour” to a civil matter. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgement in Anukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) to argue that loan repayments and document execution disputes are purely civil.
In opposition, the learned AGA and Sri Aman Thakur, counsel for respondent no. 3, produced a medical report sent to the Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur, which indicated that Vidya Sagar had sustained a head injury. They argued that the seriousness of the injury justified the charges and that the FIR clearly disclosed cognizable offences.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that the FIR and medical records prima facie showed that a cognizable offence had occurred, specifically highlighting the head injury sustained by the victim.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Somjeet Mallick vs. State of Jharkhand (2024), the Court observed:
“It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopedia of all imputations… what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not.”
The Bench emphasised that at the quashing stage, the Court is not required to determine specific offences or conduct a “mini trial.” Regarding the argument that the case was a civil dispute, the Court cited Accamma Sam Jacob vs. State of Karnataka (2026), noting that even a civil dispute may carry an element of a criminal nature.
The Court stated:
“In the instant case, even if a civil dispute may be pending between the parties the same cannot and will not give a license to the petitioners to indulge into the incident which has been committed by them i.e. of having severely assaulted various persons.”
Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of interim protection from arrest, citing Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. (2025) and Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), reiterating that a blanket “no coercive steps” order while refusing to quash an FIR is impermissible and that petitioners should instead approach the competent Sessions Court for pre-arrest bail.
The Decision
The High Court concluded that since a cognizable offence was clearly made out from the perusal of the FIR, there was no ground for interference.
“Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed,” the Bench ruled.
Case Details
- Case Title: Devendra Kumar Singh And 5 Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
- Case No.: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 3034 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- Date: April 15, 2026
